1 00:00:01,160 --> 00:00:04,360 Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff You Missed in History Class from how 2 00:00:04,400 --> 00:00:17,320 Speaker 1: Stuff Works dot Com. Hi, and welcome to the podcast. 3 00:00:17,400 --> 00:00:20,240 Speaker 1: I'm Tracy V. Wilson and I'm Holly Fry. Holly, can 4 00:00:20,280 --> 00:00:22,360 Speaker 1: I tell you a story? Please do. It's about what 5 00:00:22,360 --> 00:00:25,600 Speaker 1: we're going to talk about today. My other half Patrick, 6 00:00:26,280 --> 00:00:29,200 Speaker 1: his parents got married in New Orleans in the mid 7 00:00:29,320 --> 00:00:33,000 Speaker 1: nineteen sixties and they had to submit documentation of their 8 00:00:33,080 --> 00:00:36,880 Speaker 1: race in order to get a marriage license. That seems 9 00:00:36,920 --> 00:00:41,040 Speaker 1: so bizarre to me. Me too. He doesn't remember the details, 10 00:00:41,280 --> 00:00:44,280 Speaker 1: and unfortunately his parents have both passed away, so he 11 00:00:44,320 --> 00:00:47,200 Speaker 1: can't ask them. But in his memory, they each had 12 00:00:47,280 --> 00:00:50,360 Speaker 1: to prove that they weren't more than one eighth black 13 00:00:50,800 --> 00:00:54,440 Speaker 1: or in the language of the time, Negro. If either 14 00:00:54,520 --> 00:00:57,880 Speaker 1: one of them had been one race and the other not, 15 00:00:58,080 --> 00:01:01,080 Speaker 1: their marriage would have been a felony in Louisiana as 16 00:01:01,120 --> 00:01:04,759 Speaker 1: well as in many other states. Um So, this law 17 00:01:04,880 --> 00:01:07,720 Speaker 1: that we're talking about today are a series of laws, 18 00:01:07,760 --> 00:01:10,440 Speaker 1: the antim missagination laws that were in the South at 19 00:01:10,440 --> 00:01:13,319 Speaker 1: the time. They were affecting a lot of people of 20 00:01:13,400 --> 00:01:17,200 Speaker 1: every race. Even though the laws themselves were mostly focused 21 00:01:17,200 --> 00:01:20,120 Speaker 1: on marriages with one white person and one person of 22 00:01:20,160 --> 00:01:24,080 Speaker 1: another race. So in the discussion of Loving versus Virginia, 23 00:01:24,120 --> 00:01:26,360 Speaker 1: which we're going to talk about today, it often is 24 00:01:26,400 --> 00:01:28,839 Speaker 1: focused on the civil rights movement and what the ruling 25 00:01:28,880 --> 00:01:33,120 Speaker 1: meant to African Americans, which is absolutely the right way 26 00:01:33,120 --> 00:01:38,039 Speaker 1: to look at it, because antimissagination laws were horribly demeaning 27 00:01:38,400 --> 00:01:42,160 Speaker 1: to African American people. It was also a law that 28 00:01:42,240 --> 00:01:45,640 Speaker 1: applied to the rights of everyone of every race, so 29 00:01:45,680 --> 00:01:48,640 Speaker 1: it had a broad application apart from the fact that 30 00:01:48,680 --> 00:01:53,520 Speaker 1: antim missagination laws were really a product of slavery and 31 00:01:53,600 --> 00:01:56,960 Speaker 1: we're racist in their origin, and that is a thing 32 00:01:57,040 --> 00:02:00,960 Speaker 1: that the Supreme Court eventually ruled. And you are then, 33 00:02:01,040 --> 00:02:05,680 Speaker 1: no matter what your race, burdened with proving it just 34 00:02:05,800 --> 00:02:07,720 Speaker 1: to be with the person you want to spend your 35 00:02:07,760 --> 00:02:10,720 Speaker 1: life with, which is a bizarre hoop to have to 36 00:02:10,800 --> 00:02:13,680 Speaker 1: jump through. It is. I knew that that there were 37 00:02:13,760 --> 00:02:17,400 Speaker 1: antim assassination laws in effect and a lot of the 38 00:02:17,480 --> 00:02:21,520 Speaker 1: United States before Loving versus Virginia, I did not realize 39 00:02:21,560 --> 00:02:24,919 Speaker 1: that there were states that had sort of a proof 40 00:02:24,960 --> 00:02:28,720 Speaker 1: step before you could marry someone. Yeah, I mean there 41 00:02:28,800 --> 00:02:31,480 Speaker 1: have been the blood tests, and well, the bloods are 42 00:02:31,520 --> 00:02:36,480 Speaker 1: elements the proof of your racial heritage. Yeah, proof of 43 00:02:36,600 --> 00:02:38,280 Speaker 1: race was a new one. I would think that would 44 00:02:38,280 --> 00:02:40,960 Speaker 1: be in some cases hard to prove. That is one 45 00:02:41,000 --> 00:02:43,240 Speaker 1: of the things that came up before the Supreme Court. 46 00:02:43,600 --> 00:02:46,440 Speaker 1: So we're going to start back at the Lovings in 47 00:02:46,480 --> 00:02:50,440 Speaker 1: this part of this story. After getting the letter that 48 00:02:50,560 --> 00:02:53,920 Speaker 1: Mildred Loving sent to them in nineteen sixty three asking 49 00:02:53,960 --> 00:02:56,720 Speaker 1: them for help, the A. C. O. You referred the 50 00:02:56,800 --> 00:03:00,160 Speaker 1: Lovings to Bernard S. Cohen, who we quote it in 51 00:03:00,200 --> 00:03:02,600 Speaker 1: the first part of this podcast is saying that when 52 00:03:02,600 --> 00:03:04,760 Speaker 1: he told the Lovings that their case was probably going 53 00:03:04,800 --> 00:03:08,360 Speaker 1: to go to the Supreme Court, his jaw dropped. It 54 00:03:08,440 --> 00:03:13,040 Speaker 1: had been four years since the Lovings guilty verdict and 55 00:03:13,120 --> 00:03:16,520 Speaker 1: Virginia law required appeals to be filed within a hundred 56 00:03:16,560 --> 00:03:20,680 Speaker 1: and twenty days, so since their sentence had been suspended 57 00:03:20,720 --> 00:03:23,480 Speaker 1: as long as they stayed outside of Virginia for twenty 58 00:03:23,480 --> 00:03:26,840 Speaker 1: five years, Cohen determined that the case could be reopened 59 00:03:26,840 --> 00:03:30,040 Speaker 1: if they violated that court order. So they came home 60 00:03:30,040 --> 00:03:33,519 Speaker 1: for a visit and were arrested, and Cohen filed a 61 00:03:33,600 --> 00:03:37,600 Speaker 1: motion before Judge Bazil on November six, nineteen sixty three, 62 00:03:37,800 --> 00:03:41,120 Speaker 1: asking for the charges to be dismissed. He was arguing 63 00:03:41,120 --> 00:03:44,600 Speaker 1: that the law was unconstitutional. He cited that it violated 64 00:03:44,640 --> 00:03:47,760 Speaker 1: the equal protection claws of the Fourteenth Amendment and denied 65 00:03:47,760 --> 00:03:51,080 Speaker 1: the Lovings the fundamental right of marriage. Judge Basil did 66 00:03:51,080 --> 00:03:54,960 Speaker 1: not act on this motion, and months went by. Cohen 67 00:03:55,240 --> 00:03:58,720 Speaker 1: met during this time civil rights lawyer Philip J. Hirshkop. 68 00:03:58,880 --> 00:04:01,760 Speaker 1: Hirshkop and Cohen had both been students of zet and 69 00:04:01,920 --> 00:04:05,600 Speaker 1: To at Georgetown when they were studying law, so hirsch 70 00:04:05,640 --> 00:04:08,520 Speaker 1: Kop joined Cohen's firm and they worked together on the 71 00:04:08,600 --> 00:04:11,760 Speaker 1: Loving case for the next three years, and the two 72 00:04:11,760 --> 00:04:15,280 Speaker 1: attorneys together filed a motion in federal court in October 73 00:04:16,080 --> 00:04:19,920 Speaker 1: on they of October in nine four, asking a panel 74 00:04:19,960 --> 00:04:23,200 Speaker 1: of judges to address Judge Basil's refusal to act. The 75 00:04:23,279 --> 00:04:26,040 Speaker 1: judges directed Judge Basil to make a ruling or the 76 00:04:26,040 --> 00:04:29,280 Speaker 1: case would automatically be moved to federal court. They also 77 00:04:29,360 --> 00:04:32,080 Speaker 1: ruled that Mildred and Richard could return to Virginia together 78 00:04:32,200 --> 00:04:34,200 Speaker 1: while the case was in progress, So that was kind 79 00:04:34,240 --> 00:04:37,920 Speaker 1: of a big shift in what had already been established. Right. 80 00:04:38,040 --> 00:04:41,080 Speaker 1: They moved to a racially mixed neighborhood in King and 81 00:04:41,160 --> 00:04:45,840 Speaker 1: Queen County, Virginia. Their home life was pretty quiet. As 82 00:04:46,000 --> 00:04:48,520 Speaker 1: as we talked about in the first episode, it was 83 00:04:48,560 --> 00:04:51,919 Speaker 1: a region of Virginia that that did not get a 84 00:04:52,000 --> 00:04:55,400 Speaker 1: lot into each other's business racially. That that's sort of 85 00:04:55,400 --> 00:04:58,560 Speaker 1: how it was reported that that people kind of let 86 00:04:58,600 --> 00:05:01,359 Speaker 1: each other mind their own business. So their home life 87 00:05:01,400 --> 00:05:04,479 Speaker 1: is pretty quiet. But Cohen and hirsch Kop became the 88 00:05:04,520 --> 00:05:08,159 Speaker 1: targets of threats and harassment because of their representation of 89 00:05:08,200 --> 00:05:10,320 Speaker 1: the Lovings, and some of it was related to their 90 00:05:10,320 --> 00:05:14,400 Speaker 1: both being Jewish. So while the Lovings were having a 91 00:05:14,400 --> 00:05:16,680 Speaker 1: pretty quiet home life, all stuff was in the works, 92 00:05:16,720 --> 00:05:20,440 Speaker 1: their attorneys were really getting a lot of harassment. And 93 00:05:20,480 --> 00:05:25,200 Speaker 1: then finally on January twenty two nine, so several months 94 00:05:25,200 --> 00:05:28,040 Speaker 1: have gone by at that point, Judge Basil issued an 95 00:05:28,120 --> 00:05:32,560 Speaker 1: order denying Cohen's motion. In it, he stated, quote, Almighty 96 00:05:32,600 --> 00:05:36,080 Speaker 1: God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay, and red. 97 00:05:36,560 --> 00:05:39,599 Speaker 1: He placed them on separate continents. But for the interference 98 00:05:39,600 --> 00:05:42,440 Speaker 1: with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriages. 99 00:05:42,960 --> 00:05:45,440 Speaker 1: The fact that he separated the races shows that he 100 00:05:45,480 --> 00:05:48,360 Speaker 1: did not intend for the races to mix. This quote 101 00:05:48,360 --> 00:05:53,520 Speaker 1: became infamous. It was cited repeatedly as an example of 102 00:05:53,520 --> 00:05:58,360 Speaker 1: of racism, Essentially, Cohen and hirsch Kop appealed, and they 103 00:05:58,360 --> 00:06:01,440 Speaker 1: asked for the case to be heard in federal a court. Instead, 104 00:06:01,640 --> 00:06:04,360 Speaker 1: it was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeals in Virginia, 105 00:06:04,480 --> 00:06:07,880 Speaker 1: which denied the loving's appeal in March of nineteen sixty six. 106 00:06:08,240 --> 00:06:12,359 Speaker 1: The next step, next step Supreme Court. Cohen and Hirschkop 107 00:06:12,480 --> 00:06:15,080 Speaker 1: filed a notice of appeal with the U. S. Supreme 108 00:06:15,120 --> 00:06:19,599 Speaker 1: Court on July nineteen sixty six. Melvin L. Wolf and 109 00:06:19,720 --> 00:06:23,120 Speaker 1: David Carliner, who were both prominent A c ou lawyers, 110 00:06:23,160 --> 00:06:25,840 Speaker 1: helped them prepare the statement and the brief that followed, 111 00:06:26,400 --> 00:06:29,120 Speaker 1: and since they were appealing a lower court's ruling, the 112 00:06:29,160 --> 00:06:32,360 Speaker 1: attorneys had to prove that a federal or constitutional issue 113 00:06:32,400 --> 00:06:35,919 Speaker 1: was at stake, So Cohen and Hurtchkop built an argument 114 00:06:35,960 --> 00:06:40,039 Speaker 1: that focused on their racial integrity statue as discriminatory, denying 115 00:06:40,080 --> 00:06:43,680 Speaker 1: the due process and equal protection guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment, 116 00:06:43,960 --> 00:06:48,520 Speaker 1: as well as other basic civil rights. Virginia's racial Integrity 117 00:06:48,520 --> 00:06:53,279 Speaker 1: Statute included ten sections, while Mildred and Richard had only 118 00:06:53,320 --> 00:06:56,640 Speaker 1: been charged with breaking two of them. Cohen and Hurtchkop's 119 00:06:56,640 --> 00:06:59,520 Speaker 1: twenty page statement referred to all ten sections of the 120 00:06:59,560 --> 00:07:02,080 Speaker 1: code and the hope that the Supreme Court would overturn 121 00:07:02,160 --> 00:07:05,480 Speaker 1: the whole thing. They justified this by saying that if 122 00:07:05,520 --> 00:07:08,800 Speaker 1: only those two parts were stricken down, then Mildred and 123 00:07:08,880 --> 00:07:10,920 Speaker 1: Richard would just be found guilty of one of the 124 00:07:10,960 --> 00:07:13,520 Speaker 1: other parts and stripped of their right to marry again. 125 00:07:13,960 --> 00:07:16,960 Speaker 1: They also cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown versus 126 00:07:17,000 --> 00:07:21,120 Speaker 1: Aboard of Education and McLaughlin versus Florida, which was school 127 00:07:21,160 --> 00:07:24,080 Speaker 1: integration and different treatment of race in adultery and lewd 128 00:07:24,120 --> 00:07:28,480 Speaker 1: cohabitation from our previous episode, so they cited those rulings 129 00:07:28,480 --> 00:07:33,080 Speaker 1: among others. Cohen and Hirshcock's statement also explained how the 130 00:07:33,160 --> 00:07:37,040 Speaker 1: law was disrupting the lovings lives. They couldn't live together 131 00:07:37,080 --> 00:07:40,160 Speaker 1: in their hometown and raised their children. Their children were 132 00:07:40,200 --> 00:07:44,520 Speaker 1: branded as illegitimate because their parents marriage wasn't valid. If 133 00:07:44,600 --> 00:07:47,280 Speaker 1: one of the Lovings died, the other wouldn't get Social 134 00:07:47,280 --> 00:07:51,680 Speaker 1: Security survivor benefits, and their children wouldn't automatically inherit their 135 00:07:51,680 --> 00:07:55,200 Speaker 1: property if their parents died. So basically, the Lovings are 136 00:07:55,240 --> 00:07:58,280 Speaker 1: being excluded from legal protections that are granted to other 137 00:07:58,360 --> 00:08:03,280 Speaker 1: families because of their ace. The Supreme Court's clerk asked 138 00:08:03,280 --> 00:08:07,520 Speaker 1: the Virginia Attorney General to respond, and on November eighteenth 139 00:08:07,520 --> 00:08:10,160 Speaker 1: of nineteen sixty six, the State of Virginia filed a 140 00:08:10,240 --> 00:08:13,000 Speaker 1: twenty three page reply and asked the Supreme Court not 141 00:08:13,080 --> 00:08:16,240 Speaker 1: to consider the case. The state's argument was that the 142 00:08:16,360 --> 00:08:20,320 Speaker 1: law didn't violate the Fourteenth Amendment and that the framers 143 00:08:20,360 --> 00:08:22,640 Speaker 1: of the amendment did not intend for it to keep 144 00:08:22,720 --> 00:08:27,480 Speaker 1: states from regulating marriage, and Virginia argued that numerous other 145 00:08:27,560 --> 00:08:32,440 Speaker 1: decisions by both state and federal courts had upheld antimesagination 146 00:08:32,600 --> 00:08:36,160 Speaker 1: statutes already. The State of Virginia also asked the court 147 00:08:36,200 --> 00:08:38,520 Speaker 1: not to consider any of the ten sections of their 148 00:08:38,520 --> 00:08:41,680 Speaker 1: antim Misagination Code other than the two under which the 149 00:08:41,720 --> 00:08:44,960 Speaker 1: Lovings were actually charged. The Supreme Court got all of 150 00:08:44,960 --> 00:08:48,160 Speaker 1: this information and on December twelfth, nineteen sixty six, and 151 00:08:48,160 --> 00:08:50,800 Speaker 1: announced that it would hear the case and that oral 152 00:08:50,880 --> 00:08:54,480 Speaker 1: arguments would take place on April tenth, nineteen sixty seven. 153 00:08:55,080 --> 00:08:59,319 Speaker 1: So now we're getting to the actual Supreme Court hearing. Yes. So. 154 00:08:59,520 --> 00:09:02,320 Speaker 1: Cohen and hurch Cop prepared for the Supreme Court case, 155 00:09:02,400 --> 00:09:05,320 Speaker 1: along with several other a cel You lawyers and civil 156 00:09:05,400 --> 00:09:09,560 Speaker 1: rights experts, and they conferred with psychologists and sociologists and 157 00:09:09,600 --> 00:09:13,640 Speaker 1: biologists who all specialized in interracial relationships and the well 158 00:09:13,679 --> 00:09:16,839 Speaker 1: being of children with parents of different races. So the 159 00:09:16,880 --> 00:09:19,320 Speaker 1: way that this works is that both parties submit a 160 00:09:19,320 --> 00:09:21,960 Speaker 1: brief to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has time 161 00:09:22,000 --> 00:09:25,240 Speaker 1: to review all of that before hearing oral arguments. So 162 00:09:25,360 --> 00:09:28,120 Speaker 1: Cohen and Hirsch Coop submitted a forty page brief to 163 00:09:28,160 --> 00:09:31,520 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court on February seventeenth of nineteen sixty seven, 164 00:09:32,040 --> 00:09:34,960 Speaker 1: and it outlines six key points and I'm just going 165 00:09:35,000 --> 00:09:38,040 Speaker 1: to read them as they are written down in a 166 00:09:38,080 --> 00:09:42,120 Speaker 1: book called Supreme Court Milestones, Loving versus Virginia by Susan 167 00:09:42,200 --> 00:09:46,960 Speaker 1: Dudley Gold. So their points were the entire ten sections 168 00:09:47,040 --> 00:09:51,920 Speaker 1: of Virginia's antimissagination code should be abolished based on their history. 169 00:09:52,040 --> 00:09:56,199 Speaker 1: Virginia's laws against interracial marriage where quote relics of slavery 170 00:09:56,240 --> 00:10:00,640 Speaker 1: and expressions of racism, laws against interracial mayor edge caused 171 00:10:00,720 --> 00:10:05,120 Speaker 1: quote immeasurable social harm. Despite the historical record, the Fourteenth 172 00:10:05,160 --> 00:10:09,720 Speaker 1: Amendment did not exempt state antimexgination laws from its requirements. 173 00:10:10,200 --> 00:10:14,760 Speaker 1: Virginia's laws against interracial marriage were racially discriminatory and denied 174 00:10:14,800 --> 00:10:17,760 Speaker 1: the loving's equal protection of the laws. And the laws 175 00:10:17,840 --> 00:10:22,520 Speaker 1: also violated the Fourteenth Amendments due process claws, and the 176 00:10:22,600 --> 00:10:25,520 Speaker 1: brief went into detail about each of these points, arguing 177 00:10:25,640 --> 00:10:29,400 Speaker 1: that the idea of racial purity quotes paralleled Hitler's hope 178 00:10:29,400 --> 00:10:31,960 Speaker 1: of creating a super race, and that the laws were 179 00:10:32,080 --> 00:10:35,400 Speaker 1: quote a present day incarnation of an ancient evil, and 180 00:10:35,480 --> 00:10:38,400 Speaker 1: they tied that into the concept of white slave owners 181 00:10:38,920 --> 00:10:42,200 Speaker 1: raping their slaves, that they set up a case system, 182 00:10:42,720 --> 00:10:44,800 Speaker 1: and that the laws were tied to an idea of 183 00:10:44,840 --> 00:10:47,800 Speaker 1: a pure race when there was really no proof that 184 00:10:47,880 --> 00:10:51,080 Speaker 1: any such thing existed. That comes up a lot in 185 00:10:51,120 --> 00:10:54,200 Speaker 1: the arguments the idea of whether there is a pure 186 00:10:54,440 --> 00:10:57,440 Speaker 1: race and why the focus on this pure race is 187 00:10:57,520 --> 00:11:01,080 Speaker 1: on the white race and not other races is Cohen 188 00:11:01,080 --> 00:11:04,960 Speaker 1: and Hirschkop also noted in a footnote that had Pocahonis 189 00:11:05,000 --> 00:11:08,920 Speaker 1: and John Rolf been living in Virginia at that present time, 190 00:11:09,360 --> 00:11:12,120 Speaker 1: they could not have married one another. The State of 191 00:11:12,200 --> 00:11:15,559 Speaker 1: Virginia submitted a fifty two page brief on March twenty, 192 00:11:15,840 --> 00:11:18,559 Speaker 1: nineteen sixty seven, which was prepared by the States legal 193 00:11:18,600 --> 00:11:23,840 Speaker 1: team Attorney General Robert Y. Button and Assistant Attorneys General 194 00:11:23,960 --> 00:11:28,200 Speaker 1: Kenneth C. Patty and R. D. Mcelwaine. Virginia's argument was 195 00:11:28,840 --> 00:11:32,120 Speaker 1: number one that the law was not unconstitutional and that 196 00:11:32,160 --> 00:11:35,360 Speaker 1: many other rulings had said so, that it was not 197 00:11:35,480 --> 00:11:39,840 Speaker 1: the court's role to overturn rulings based on sociological, biological, 198 00:11:39,920 --> 00:11:43,480 Speaker 1: and inthropological research, and that if the Court did, that 199 00:11:43,520 --> 00:11:47,160 Speaker 1: research would be contradictory. Virginia argued that the codes did 200 00:11:47,200 --> 00:11:49,760 Speaker 1: not violate the Fourteenth Amendment because it was not the 201 00:11:49,800 --> 00:11:52,480 Speaker 1: intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment to include 202 00:11:52,520 --> 00:11:56,720 Speaker 1: anti missagination laws and its scope. The next twenty four pages, 203 00:11:57,200 --> 00:12:00,800 Speaker 1: so almost half of the document was about the legislative 204 00:12:00,840 --> 00:12:05,520 Speaker 1: history of the Fourteenth Amendment. There were five additional ammicky 205 00:12:06,160 --> 00:12:09,560 Speaker 1: Courier friend of the Court, not directly involved in the 206 00:12:09,559 --> 00:12:14,360 Speaker 1: proceedings but offering additional information briefs. UH four were in 207 00:12:14,400 --> 00:12:17,360 Speaker 1: the Loving's favor and one was in Virginia's favor. The 208 00:12:17,360 --> 00:12:19,600 Speaker 1: one in Virginia's favor was written by the state of 209 00:12:19,600 --> 00:12:23,640 Speaker 1: North Carolina. North Carolina had antim asssgnation laws that were 210 00:12:23,760 --> 00:12:26,280 Speaker 1: very like what was on the books in Virginia at 211 00:12:26,280 --> 00:12:29,280 Speaker 1: the time. The only one of these that was actually 212 00:12:29,320 --> 00:12:32,600 Speaker 1: permitted to argue before the court was the Japanese American 213 00:12:32,679 --> 00:12:35,880 Speaker 1: Citizens League. The other briefs in favor of the Lovings 214 00:12:35,880 --> 00:12:38,560 Speaker 1: were from the Inn Double A CP, the Legal Defense 215 00:12:38,559 --> 00:12:42,439 Speaker 1: and Education Fund in Double A CP, which filed separately, 216 00:12:42,880 --> 00:12:46,720 Speaker 1: and a coalition of Catholic bishops and other Catholic social organizations. 217 00:12:47,559 --> 00:12:51,520 Speaker 1: These briefs were largely focused on equal protection and due process. 218 00:12:52,200 --> 00:12:56,000 Speaker 1: The Catholic Organization's brief added to that that the antim 219 00:12:56,040 --> 00:12:59,440 Speaker 1: assassination laws violated the First Amendment by keeping people from 220 00:12:59,440 --> 00:13:03,040 Speaker 1: exercise in their religious freedoms, saying that marriage was quote 221 00:13:03,120 --> 00:13:07,520 Speaker 1: a fundamental act of religion. The oral arguments took place 222 00:13:07,520 --> 00:13:10,400 Speaker 1: on April tenth of nine seven, and you can actually 223 00:13:10,400 --> 00:13:13,120 Speaker 1: listen to the entire oral argument online, which Tracy has 224 00:13:13,160 --> 00:13:15,120 Speaker 1: been doing a lot of. I listened to the whole 225 00:13:15,200 --> 00:13:17,160 Speaker 1: oral argument and we will put a link to that 226 00:13:17,240 --> 00:13:18,920 Speaker 1: in our show notes if you would like to listen 227 00:13:18,920 --> 00:13:21,240 Speaker 1: to it. Also, um, we're going to talk about the 228 00:13:21,360 --> 00:13:23,840 Speaker 1: oral argument, both the part that was in the Loving's 229 00:13:23,880 --> 00:13:26,880 Speaker 1: favor and the part that was argued for Virginia. So 230 00:13:26,960 --> 00:13:29,959 Speaker 1: for the Lovings, Cohen and hirsch Kopp divided the time 231 00:13:30,000 --> 00:13:32,720 Speaker 1: that they were allowed to have, with hirsch Kopp arguing 232 00:13:32,760 --> 00:13:36,720 Speaker 1: the equal protection portion and Cohen presenting the due process 233 00:13:36,840 --> 00:13:40,120 Speaker 1: portion of their argument. Hirsch Kop was only about two 234 00:13:40,200 --> 00:13:43,360 Speaker 1: years into his career, and to argue before the Supreme Court, 235 00:13:43,400 --> 00:13:45,640 Speaker 1: a lawyer had to have been admitted to the highest 236 00:13:45,640 --> 00:13:49,080 Speaker 1: court in the state or territory or the district of 237 00:13:49,080 --> 00:13:52,000 Speaker 1: Columbia for three years. So Cohen had to move that 238 00:13:52,160 --> 00:13:55,679 Speaker 1: Hirshkoff be admitted pro Hockbeach, which is sort of a 239 00:13:55,840 --> 00:13:58,400 Speaker 1: just for this time, I would like this person to 240 00:13:58,440 --> 00:14:00,280 Speaker 1: be able to argue this case with me. So it's 241 00:14:00,320 --> 00:14:02,640 Speaker 1: a one time dispensation. Yes, yes, he got a one 242 00:14:02,640 --> 00:14:06,000 Speaker 1: time dispense dispensation. He's really early in his career at 243 00:14:06,040 --> 00:14:10,079 Speaker 1: this point. So Hitchcock went first with his points on 244 00:14:10,200 --> 00:14:13,679 Speaker 1: equal protection and on the race hysteria that had prompted 245 00:14:13,679 --> 00:14:16,959 Speaker 1: the Virginia codes in question and other codes similar to it. 246 00:14:17,400 --> 00:14:19,560 Speaker 1: He started right out of the gate with classifying the 247 00:14:19,640 --> 00:14:23,000 Speaker 1: racial Integrity Statute as a slavery law. He does not 248 00:14:23,240 --> 00:14:25,320 Speaker 1: pull any punches with that either. That's one of the 249 00:14:25,360 --> 00:14:27,920 Speaker 1: first sentences out of his mouth is that the Racial 250 00:14:27,960 --> 00:14:31,760 Speaker 1: Integrity Statute is a slavery law. He also pointed out 251 00:14:31,800 --> 00:14:34,520 Speaker 1: that a lot of the immigration and racial purity laws 252 00:14:34,560 --> 00:14:37,320 Speaker 1: that had come into play at about that time happened 253 00:14:37,360 --> 00:14:40,280 Speaker 1: when northern states were worried about the influx of Irish 254 00:14:40,320 --> 00:14:45,440 Speaker 1: and Italian immigrants, and western states were worried about Asian immigrants. 255 00:14:45,560 --> 00:14:49,400 Speaker 1: So these states that had worries about the immigration of 256 00:14:49,440 --> 00:14:52,040 Speaker 1: people that were coming into their their part of the country, 257 00:14:52,160 --> 00:14:55,560 Speaker 1: they built on post Civil war laws that we're governing race. 258 00:14:56,480 --> 00:14:59,520 Speaker 1: So as sort of a side note here, that there's 259 00:14:59,560 --> 00:15:01,800 Speaker 1: a whole a lot of talk about the South in 260 00:15:01,800 --> 00:15:05,560 Speaker 1: this case, because the antim assignation laws were all in 261 00:15:05,600 --> 00:15:09,080 Speaker 1: the South at that point, but there was racism and 262 00:15:09,160 --> 00:15:11,360 Speaker 1: a lot of the rest of the world that directly 263 00:15:11,440 --> 00:15:15,600 Speaker 1: fed into this whole argument. The idea of racial integrity 264 00:15:16,400 --> 00:15:19,160 Speaker 1: was really tied to the idea of white supremacy because 265 00:15:19,160 --> 00:15:23,440 Speaker 1: in almost all cases, the primary focus of antim assignation 266 00:15:23,520 --> 00:15:28,400 Speaker 1: laws was preventing white people for marrying people of other races, 267 00:15:28,480 --> 00:15:31,480 Speaker 1: So the focus was on keeping the white blood pure 268 00:15:32,080 --> 00:15:35,680 Speaker 1: and not that of other races. And he wrapped up 269 00:15:35,680 --> 00:15:38,560 Speaker 1: his argument with a reiteration, that's the laws in question. Again. 270 00:15:38,640 --> 00:15:41,240 Speaker 1: He was like slavery. He circled right back to that 271 00:15:41,280 --> 00:15:44,160 Speaker 1: slavery law. But that's kind of how he booke ended 272 00:15:44,200 --> 00:15:49,640 Speaker 1: his whole presentation. Cohen followed, and his argument was about 273 00:15:49,680 --> 00:15:52,840 Speaker 1: due process. There was more back and forth between Cohen 274 00:15:53,000 --> 00:15:56,560 Speaker 1: and the Supreme Court justices than with hirsh cop. He 275 00:15:56,920 --> 00:16:00,560 Speaker 1: argued that the equal protection argument was pretty strong, but 276 00:16:00,720 --> 00:16:03,400 Speaker 1: he was there was worry that if the Court only 277 00:16:03,480 --> 00:16:07,320 Speaker 1: found a violation of the equal protection clause, that Virginia 278 00:16:07,400 --> 00:16:10,440 Speaker 1: could pass other discriminatory laws, that they would be okay 279 00:16:10,440 --> 00:16:13,280 Speaker 1: because they were quote equal. So they would just equalize 280 00:16:13,320 --> 00:16:17,560 Speaker 1: by passing more restrictive laws. They would equalize the law 281 00:16:17,720 --> 00:16:20,160 Speaker 1: by saying that white people could only marry white people, 282 00:16:20,480 --> 00:16:23,400 Speaker 1: and African Americans could only marry African Americans, and the 283 00:16:23,480 --> 00:16:27,600 Speaker 1: Asians could only marry Asians, and that that would be equal. Uh. 284 00:16:27,720 --> 00:16:30,840 Speaker 1: So they were building a due process argument to try 285 00:16:30,880 --> 00:16:36,480 Speaker 1: to counteract that possibility. Cohen also passed on Richard Loving's 286 00:16:36,640 --> 00:16:39,600 Speaker 1: famously quoted line to the court as an example that 287 00:16:39,960 --> 00:16:43,440 Speaker 1: even a layperson has a fundamental understanding of what's fair, 288 00:16:43,560 --> 00:16:46,560 Speaker 1: and he tied that into the idea of due process. 289 00:16:46,600 --> 00:16:49,640 Speaker 1: And that quote from Richard Loving was tell the court, 290 00:16:49,760 --> 00:16:52,640 Speaker 1: I love my wife and it is just unfair that 291 00:16:52,680 --> 00:16:56,360 Speaker 1: I can't live with her. In Virginia, Justice Potter Stewart 292 00:16:56,640 --> 00:17:00,280 Speaker 1: questioned Cohen about how this due process argument might apply to, 293 00:17:00,560 --> 00:17:04,600 Speaker 1: for example, first cousins or siblings marrying, and Cohen responded 294 00:17:04,640 --> 00:17:08,040 Speaker 1: that states could still make marriage laws based on reasonable reasons, 295 00:17:08,040 --> 00:17:10,120 Speaker 1: but that making them based on race was in fact 296 00:17:10,240 --> 00:17:13,480 Speaker 1: not reasonable. He argued that the fourteenth Amendment was an 297 00:17:13,520 --> 00:17:17,520 Speaker 1: amendment written as protection against racial discrimination. In that light, 298 00:17:17,800 --> 00:17:20,440 Speaker 1: it applied very clearly and strongly to the loving case. 299 00:17:21,359 --> 00:17:25,560 Speaker 1: Cohen called race quote just not acceptable grounds, but an 300 00:17:25,640 --> 00:17:29,359 Speaker 1: arbitrary and capricious ground for denying marriage. They spent a 301 00:17:29,400 --> 00:17:32,080 Speaker 1: great deal of time discussing the idea of cousins marrying 302 00:17:32,160 --> 00:17:35,840 Speaker 1: in the actual case. Yeah, when you were hearing when 303 00:17:35,840 --> 00:17:37,879 Speaker 1: you listen to the oral argument, there's a fair amount 304 00:17:37,880 --> 00:17:41,440 Speaker 1: of questioning about whether this precedent would apply to other 305 00:17:41,560 --> 00:17:46,440 Speaker 1: things that are regarded as not okay, like the age 306 00:17:46,640 --> 00:17:50,360 Speaker 1: or how closely people are related, uh, that sort of thing. 307 00:17:50,440 --> 00:17:53,199 Speaker 1: And so there's a pretty good amount of back and 308 00:17:53,240 --> 00:17:57,439 Speaker 1: forth between the justices and Cohen when talking about that 309 00:17:57,480 --> 00:18:00,359 Speaker 1: part of it. Um Cohen also poked a whole in 310 00:18:00,400 --> 00:18:03,880 Speaker 1: the state's argument that there had been debate about antimsagenation 311 00:18:04,000 --> 00:18:07,640 Speaker 1: laws in the context of the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. 312 00:18:08,160 --> 00:18:11,320 Speaker 1: He noted that all of that debate really happened in 313 00:18:11,359 --> 00:18:14,399 Speaker 1: the context of the Civil Rights Act of eighteen sixty six, 314 00:18:14,920 --> 00:18:18,640 Speaker 1: not the Fourteenth Amendment. He called the racial integrity statutes 315 00:18:18,680 --> 00:18:23,879 Speaker 1: in Virginia quote odious to the Fourteenth Amendment. Cohen also 316 00:18:24,000 --> 00:18:27,000 Speaker 1: posed the question of exactly what danger would there be 317 00:18:27,080 --> 00:18:30,320 Speaker 1: to Virginia, to the people of Virginia that these laws 318 00:18:30,320 --> 00:18:33,320 Speaker 1: were trying to prevent, Like, what will it harm anyone 319 00:18:33,359 --> 00:18:36,520 Speaker 1: else if we allowed couples like this to marry? Right. 320 00:18:36,640 --> 00:18:39,920 Speaker 1: That came up when Virginia was making its argument, which 321 00:18:39,920 --> 00:18:42,760 Speaker 1: we'll talk about and in a moment. First there was 322 00:18:42,800 --> 00:18:46,399 Speaker 1: the the one other person who was allowed to make 323 00:18:46,600 --> 00:18:50,040 Speaker 1: an argument for the lovings in this in the oral arguments. 324 00:18:50,440 --> 00:18:53,600 Speaker 1: That was William Martani, who was the attorney for the 325 00:18:53,680 --> 00:18:57,119 Speaker 1: Japanese American Citizens League, and he got fifteen minutes to 326 00:18:57,119 --> 00:19:00,560 Speaker 1: speak to the Supreme Court. He made a personal appeal 327 00:19:00,640 --> 00:19:03,840 Speaker 1: as a niece, which is a person, an American person 328 00:19:03,880 --> 00:19:07,639 Speaker 1: born of Japanese parents, and his point of view was 329 00:19:07,720 --> 00:19:09,960 Speaker 1: that that made him one of the very few people 330 00:19:10,000 --> 00:19:13,480 Speaker 1: in the courtroom, apart from the other nissa who were watching, 331 00:19:13,960 --> 00:19:17,760 Speaker 1: who could definitively say what their race was, all the 332 00:19:17,800 --> 00:19:21,600 Speaker 1: way back in the melting pot of America, he said, 333 00:19:21,640 --> 00:19:24,480 Speaker 1: it would be just about impossible to prove that you 334 00:19:24,560 --> 00:19:28,720 Speaker 1: had quote no trace whatever of any blood other than Caucasian, 335 00:19:28,840 --> 00:19:32,520 Speaker 1: which is what the Virginia law required. He also noted 336 00:19:32,560 --> 00:19:37,119 Speaker 1: that anthropologists really reject the idea of quote, a pure race, 337 00:19:37,880 --> 00:19:41,320 Speaker 1: but that with scholars saying there's no such thing as 338 00:19:41,320 --> 00:19:43,920 Speaker 1: a pure race, the state of Virginia would have lay 339 00:19:43,960 --> 00:19:48,160 Speaker 1: people assigning race to people using their physical features, which 340 00:19:48,200 --> 00:19:53,880 Speaker 1: have quote no legislative purpose. Maritani also repeated the argument 341 00:19:53,920 --> 00:19:56,840 Speaker 1: that the Virginia law was clearly about white supremacy, since 342 00:19:56,880 --> 00:19:59,560 Speaker 1: the laws only governed the purity of white people's blood, 343 00:19:59,640 --> 00:20:02,720 Speaker 1: and we're not concerned with anyone else's racial purity. He 344 00:20:02,800 --> 00:20:05,480 Speaker 1: also kind of nods to the reluctance that we talked 345 00:20:05,480 --> 00:20:08,600 Speaker 1: about before that the court had seemed to show in 346 00:20:08,720 --> 00:20:13,560 Speaker 1: getting into race relations, because Maratoni noted that striking down 347 00:20:13,760 --> 00:20:17,600 Speaker 1: antim assagnation laws wasn't going to make anyone do anything 348 00:20:17,640 --> 00:20:20,159 Speaker 1: they didn't want to do. That wasn't gonna make people 349 00:20:20,240 --> 00:20:22,439 Speaker 1: have to go marry some one of another race if 350 00:20:22,440 --> 00:20:25,160 Speaker 1: they didn't want to, the way it had made schools 351 00:20:25,200 --> 00:20:29,040 Speaker 1: integrate when people didn't want to. So instead, what was 352 00:20:29,080 --> 00:20:32,439 Speaker 1: going to happen if they struck down antimissagnation laws was 353 00:20:32,480 --> 00:20:36,320 Speaker 1: to restore the freedom of choice to everyone, including people 354 00:20:36,320 --> 00:20:40,160 Speaker 1: who didn't actually agree with in our marriage between the races. 355 00:20:40,440 --> 00:20:44,720 Speaker 1: And that concluded the arguments in favor of the Lovings. 356 00:20:45,440 --> 00:20:49,600 Speaker 1: And then for the Commonwealth of Virginia, Assistant Attorney General R. D. 357 00:20:49,760 --> 00:20:53,000 Speaker 1: Mc owing the third presented the state's case, and he 358 00:20:53,119 --> 00:20:56,440 Speaker 1: stressed again that the States wish that the court focus 359 00:20:56,480 --> 00:20:58,440 Speaker 1: just on the two parts of the statute that Richard 360 00:20:58,440 --> 00:21:02,600 Speaker 1: and Mildred had been found guilty of breaking. Chief Justice 361 00:21:02,600 --> 00:21:06,600 Speaker 1: Earl Lawren started questioning him pretty early in his presentation, 362 00:21:07,160 --> 00:21:10,919 Speaker 1: and he asked about the provision in Virginia law that 363 00:21:11,000 --> 00:21:14,119 Speaker 1: a white person could marry a quote North American Indian 364 00:21:14,800 --> 00:21:18,280 Speaker 1: if that person had less than one sixteenth Indian blood. 365 00:21:18,960 --> 00:21:21,600 Speaker 1: Mcawaine said that was a special provision and that he 366 00:21:21,760 --> 00:21:25,159 Speaker 1: himself could see some constitutional problems with it, but he 367 00:21:25,240 --> 00:21:28,119 Speaker 1: claimed that the reason that the law in Virginia was 368 00:21:28,160 --> 00:21:31,919 Speaker 1: focused on white people marrying black people was because seventy 369 00:21:32,280 --> 00:21:36,080 Speaker 1: percent of the Virginia population was white and was black, 370 00:21:36,400 --> 00:21:39,320 Speaker 1: leaving the remaining one percent kind of not really worth 371 00:21:39,359 --> 00:21:42,520 Speaker 1: worrying about in terms of racial purity. That was almost 372 00:21:43,119 --> 00:21:46,920 Speaker 1: his exact warreds he he he was like, well, you've 373 00:21:46,920 --> 00:21:49,200 Speaker 1: got seventy nine percent who were white and twenty percent 374 00:21:49,200 --> 00:21:51,800 Speaker 1: who were black, and the remaining one percent not a 375 00:21:51,800 --> 00:21:55,760 Speaker 1: really a lot to worry about. Not Jermaine to their thinking. Uh, 376 00:21:55,800 --> 00:21:58,000 Speaker 1: he argued that the law was equal because black people 377 00:21:58,040 --> 00:22:00,840 Speaker 1: couldn't marry white people and white people couldn't very black people. 378 00:22:00,880 --> 00:22:02,760 Speaker 1: So he just kind of inverted it and said, see, 379 00:22:02,760 --> 00:22:05,760 Speaker 1: that's equal rights, the same for both sides. The court 380 00:22:05,840 --> 00:22:09,359 Speaker 1: then asked him whether an interracial couple who had lived 381 00:22:09,400 --> 00:22:11,960 Speaker 1: somewhere else and gotten married and then moved to Virginia 382 00:22:12,000 --> 00:22:14,320 Speaker 1: would be breaking a law. So if you lived in 383 00:22:14,400 --> 00:22:16,720 Speaker 1: Virginia and then you moved somewhere else to get or 384 00:22:16,880 --> 00:22:18,680 Speaker 1: went somewhere else to get married and then came back 385 00:22:18,720 --> 00:22:21,960 Speaker 1: to Virginia to skirt the law, that was illegal, and 386 00:22:22,080 --> 00:22:25,440 Speaker 1: his argument was that no, it would not be illegal. 387 00:22:25,720 --> 00:22:28,840 Speaker 1: But then there was some discussion about whether states needed 388 00:22:28,880 --> 00:22:33,359 Speaker 1: to recognize marriages that were valid in other states, but 389 00:22:33,520 --> 00:22:36,400 Speaker 1: not valid in that particular state. And they went back 390 00:22:36,400 --> 00:22:39,399 Speaker 1: and forth about that for a while, and then mclwaine 391 00:22:39,520 --> 00:22:42,600 Speaker 1: went on to make two main arguments. First, he reviewed 392 00:22:42,640 --> 00:22:45,560 Speaker 1: the history of the fourteenth Amendment and its passage at length, 393 00:22:45,960 --> 00:22:48,960 Speaker 1: saying that that the debates leading to its passage showed 394 00:22:49,000 --> 00:22:53,040 Speaker 1: it was not intended to prevent anti missgenation laws. And 395 00:22:53,080 --> 00:22:55,119 Speaker 1: then he went on to argue that even if the 396 00:22:55,119 --> 00:22:58,879 Speaker 1: Amendment was intended to prevent those laws, Virginia's intent was 397 00:22:58,920 --> 00:23:02,959 Speaker 1: to prevent quote the sociological and psychological evils which attend 398 00:23:03,040 --> 00:23:07,560 Speaker 1: interracial marriages, basically arguing that those laws were right and reasonable. 399 00:23:07,880 --> 00:23:11,119 Speaker 1: So Chief Justice Earl Warren asked him a lot of 400 00:23:11,240 --> 00:23:15,439 Speaker 1: pointed questions about the state's position that antim assassination laws 401 00:23:15,480 --> 00:23:18,840 Speaker 1: had been discussed in the debate around the fourteenth Amendment. Remember, 402 00:23:18,880 --> 00:23:21,800 Speaker 1: the legal team for the Lovings had already alleged that 403 00:23:21,800 --> 00:23:26,199 Speaker 1: that was not the case, and mcowain explained that it really. 404 00:23:26,280 --> 00:23:30,040 Speaker 1: He eventually, after some hedging, brought up that it was 405 00:23:30,080 --> 00:23:32,679 Speaker 1: the Freedman's Bureau Bill and the Civil Rights Act of 406 00:23:32,760 --> 00:23:38,040 Speaker 1: eighteen sixty six. But he argued that that the language 407 00:23:38,080 --> 00:23:40,679 Speaker 1: from those two things had made it in whole cloth 408 00:23:40,760 --> 00:23:44,440 Speaker 1: into the fourteenth Amendment, meaning that people didn't discuss them 409 00:23:44,480 --> 00:23:48,120 Speaker 1: in the Fourteenth Amendment discussions because they had been already 410 00:23:48,160 --> 00:23:51,600 Speaker 1: discussed and decided on elsewhere, so why continue to talk 411 00:23:51,640 --> 00:23:55,520 Speaker 1: about it? And he reiterated the state's rights argument and 412 00:23:55,640 --> 00:23:57,719 Speaker 1: the argument that states needed to be able to do 413 00:23:57,760 --> 00:24:01,200 Speaker 1: what was right in their own particular population and saying, quote, 414 00:24:01,240 --> 00:24:04,480 Speaker 1: there is a rational classification setting so far as the 415 00:24:04,560 --> 00:24:08,320 Speaker 1: Virginia population is concerned for preventing marriages between white and 416 00:24:08,320 --> 00:24:10,960 Speaker 1: colored people, who make up almost the entirety of the 417 00:24:10,960 --> 00:24:14,320 Speaker 1: state population, and that this is supported by the prevailing 418 00:24:14,320 --> 00:24:19,560 Speaker 1: climate of scientific opinion. He tied the interracial marriage conversation 419 00:24:19,640 --> 00:24:22,600 Speaker 1: to bigamy and incest and said that families that were 420 00:24:22,640 --> 00:24:27,760 Speaker 1: intermarried had excessive hardships from society. And he got into 421 00:24:27,840 --> 00:24:31,879 Speaker 1: pretty lengthy conversation with some of the justices, particularly Chief 422 00:24:31,920 --> 00:24:36,159 Speaker 1: Justice Warren and Justice Hugo. Black, about the research that 423 00:24:36,320 --> 00:24:41,720 Speaker 1: was tied to race and marriage. Essentially, mcawaen kept appearing 424 00:24:41,760 --> 00:24:45,879 Speaker 1: to cite studies that were biased while ignoring the studies 425 00:24:45,920 --> 00:24:48,639 Speaker 1: that that ran contrary to the position that he was making. 426 00:24:49,440 --> 00:24:54,679 Speaker 1: Chief Justice Warren was not tolerant of that, Chief Justice 427 00:24:54,720 --> 00:24:58,439 Speaker 1: Warren kept pointing out things that contradicted the evidence that 428 00:24:58,560 --> 00:25:03,320 Speaker 1: mclwaine was presented ing, and eventually Justice Hugo. Black said 429 00:25:03,359 --> 00:25:06,840 Speaker 1: to him, Matta, ask you this question, aside from all 430 00:25:06,960 --> 00:25:12,720 Speaker 1: questions from the genetics, psychology, psychiatry, sociology, and everything else, 431 00:25:12,920 --> 00:25:15,959 Speaker 1: aside from all of them, forgetting it for the moment, 432 00:25:16,560 --> 00:25:19,640 Speaker 1: is there any doubt in your mind that the object 433 00:25:19,720 --> 00:25:23,280 Speaker 1: of this statute, the basic promise on which they rest, 434 00:25:23,440 --> 00:25:26,680 Speaker 1: is that white people are the superiors of the colored 435 00:25:26,720 --> 00:25:30,560 Speaker 1: people and should not be permitted to marry. So mcawain 436 00:25:30,680 --> 00:25:34,160 Speaker 1: tried to get out of answering this question, and then, finally, 437 00:25:34,320 --> 00:25:38,720 Speaker 1: after some various sort of angled attempts at answering it, 438 00:25:39,240 --> 00:25:42,800 Speaker 1: acknowledge that, yes, when those laws were set down, they 439 00:25:42,840 --> 00:25:45,920 Speaker 1: were definitely racist when they were past, but he tried 440 00:25:45,960 --> 00:25:49,320 Speaker 1: to argue that they were still justifiable as he was 441 00:25:49,400 --> 00:25:54,560 Speaker 1: arguing them before the Supreme Court, and the justices also 442 00:25:54,680 --> 00:25:57,200 Speaker 1: asked how he thought they should rule in light of 443 00:25:57,240 --> 00:26:01,160 Speaker 1: Brown versus Board of Education, and mcawayne's stated that education 444 00:26:01,240 --> 00:26:04,200 Speaker 1: was a fundamental right, just as John M. Harland then 445 00:26:04,240 --> 00:26:08,040 Speaker 1: asked whether marriage was also an equally important right, and 446 00:26:08,119 --> 00:26:11,080 Speaker 1: mc Owen said that marriage was not equal. Children are 447 00:26:11,080 --> 00:26:13,240 Speaker 1: required to go to school, but no one is required 448 00:26:13,280 --> 00:26:17,439 Speaker 1: to marry. After mcawaan's time was up, Cohen only had 449 00:26:17,480 --> 00:26:21,280 Speaker 1: a few minutes for his rebuttal, and I'm sort of 450 00:26:21,280 --> 00:26:24,639 Speaker 1: extrapolating based on what he says. He did not really 451 00:26:25,000 --> 00:26:28,119 Speaker 1: talk a lot about the specific arguments that the state 452 00:26:28,160 --> 00:26:31,199 Speaker 1: had made. I think that people were pretty confident that 453 00:26:31,280 --> 00:26:33,920 Speaker 1: the state had not made a good case. So what 454 00:26:34,040 --> 00:26:36,560 Speaker 1: he spent most of that time talking about was the 455 00:26:36,640 --> 00:26:39,960 Speaker 1: necessity that the court beside on all ten sections of 456 00:26:39,960 --> 00:26:42,520 Speaker 1: the Code, and not just the two that the Lovings 457 00:26:42,560 --> 00:26:47,879 Speaker 1: had been charged with breaking. Um. He reiterated the rights 458 00:26:47,920 --> 00:26:50,320 Speaker 1: that Richard and Mildred had to their home and their 459 00:26:50,359 --> 00:26:53,679 Speaker 1: family and their children, and and tried to make a 460 00:26:53,720 --> 00:26:57,520 Speaker 1: strong case that if they only struck down two parts 461 00:26:57,520 --> 00:27:00,720 Speaker 1: of the Code, that their rights would be disrupted by 462 00:27:00,760 --> 00:27:04,399 Speaker 1: the rest of the code, and that concluded the oral arguments, 463 00:27:05,359 --> 00:27:07,959 Speaker 1: as happens in Supreme Court cases. Then there was a 464 00:27:07,960 --> 00:27:12,359 Speaker 1: long time before the Court issued an opinion, and on 465 00:27:12,520 --> 00:27:16,760 Speaker 1: June twelfth, nineteen sixty seven, Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered 466 00:27:16,800 --> 00:27:22,320 Speaker 1: the Court's opinion. It unanimously decided to overturn Virginia's entire 467 00:27:22,440 --> 00:27:26,399 Speaker 1: code of racial purity laws, and he cited that using 468 00:27:26,520 --> 00:27:29,520 Speaker 1: race to restrict the freedom to marry violated the equal 469 00:27:29,560 --> 00:27:34,640 Speaker 1: protection clause and that the lovings had been denied due process. So, 470 00:27:34,840 --> 00:27:37,959 Speaker 1: from the opinion, a quote is quote, there can be 471 00:27:38,080 --> 00:27:41,960 Speaker 1: no question but that Virginia's misaggenation statutes rest solely upon 472 00:27:42,000 --> 00:27:46,640 Speaker 1: distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes prescribed generally accepted 473 00:27:46,680 --> 00:27:50,480 Speaker 1: conduct if engaged in by members of different races. Over 474 00:27:50,520 --> 00:27:56,320 Speaker 1: the years, this Court has consistently repudiated distinctions between citizens 475 00:27:56,320 --> 00:28:00,280 Speaker 1: solely because of their ancestry as being odious who free 476 00:28:00,320 --> 00:28:04,119 Speaker 1: people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality. 477 00:28:04,560 --> 00:28:07,520 Speaker 1: The court also noted that because the law only dealt 478 00:28:07,520 --> 00:28:10,840 Speaker 1: with white people marrying other people of other races, it 479 00:28:10,960 --> 00:28:15,520 Speaker 1: was clearly meant meant to quote maintain white supremacy. And 480 00:28:15,560 --> 00:28:18,399 Speaker 1: also from that opinion, another great quote is that marriage 481 00:28:18,480 --> 00:28:20,840 Speaker 1: is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental 482 00:28:20,880 --> 00:28:25,080 Speaker 1: to our very existence and survival. Justice Stewart also noted 483 00:28:25,080 --> 00:28:28,880 Speaker 1: in a separate opinion that a state law cannot make 484 00:28:28,920 --> 00:28:31,959 Speaker 1: an act a crime because of the race of the 485 00:28:32,000 --> 00:28:35,440 Speaker 1: person doing it, So you can't take a generally legal 486 00:28:35,520 --> 00:28:38,160 Speaker 1: activity and make it illegal because of the race of 487 00:28:38,160 --> 00:28:42,959 Speaker 1: the person. Um. This decision avoided all of the antim 488 00:28:42,960 --> 00:28:46,560 Speaker 1: assasination laws in all sixteen states that were still banning 489 00:28:46,600 --> 00:28:52,600 Speaker 1: interracial marriages at the time. So huge change, giant change 490 00:28:52,760 --> 00:28:56,600 Speaker 1: in uh the legal status of marriage in many many places. 491 00:28:56,840 --> 00:28:59,520 Speaker 1: So the Warren Court was pretty sweeping in a lot 492 00:28:59,520 --> 00:29:02,680 Speaker 1: of ways, and this is an example of that. Um 493 00:29:02,760 --> 00:29:06,000 Speaker 1: So what happened next holly well. Even though the courts 494 00:29:06,080 --> 00:29:09,160 Speaker 1: ruling voided the antime assagenation laws, a lot of those 495 00:29:09,200 --> 00:29:11,680 Speaker 1: laws remained on the books and several states for some time. 496 00:29:11,960 --> 00:29:14,720 Speaker 1: So Virginia repealed them in nineteen sixty eight, but still 497 00:29:14,760 --> 00:29:17,600 Speaker 1: had definitions of different races on the books until nineteen 498 00:29:17,640 --> 00:29:22,960 Speaker 1: seventy five. Florida, Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas, and West Virginia had 499 00:29:23,000 --> 00:29:27,440 Speaker 1: repealed their laws by nineteen sixty nine. Tennessee citizens voted 500 00:29:27,480 --> 00:29:31,520 Speaker 1: to repeal that state's laws in nineteen seventy eight. Mississippi 501 00:29:31,560 --> 00:29:34,280 Speaker 1: had a ban on interracial marriage in its state constitution 502 00:29:34,400 --> 00:29:38,440 Speaker 1: until nineteen eighty seven. South Carolina had a section in 503 00:29:38,480 --> 00:29:42,160 Speaker 1: its constitution barring marriages between white people and anyone with 504 00:29:42,200 --> 00:29:47,040 Speaker 1: more than one eighth African blood until Alabama was the 505 00:29:47,120 --> 00:29:50,320 Speaker 1: last state to repeal it's antime assagenation laws, and that 506 00:29:50,400 --> 00:29:54,280 Speaker 1: was in two thousand after a popular vote. Sixty had 507 00:29:54,360 --> 00:29:57,760 Speaker 1: voted in favor of repeal. So you'll still see sometimes 508 00:29:58,120 --> 00:29:59,960 Speaker 1: stories come up in the news of people who are 509 00:30:00,120 --> 00:30:02,800 Speaker 1: denied marriage because of their race. But at this point, 510 00:30:03,160 --> 00:30:06,959 Speaker 1: if someone does that, it is illegal, and we can 511 00:30:06,960 --> 00:30:08,920 Speaker 1: talk about the Lovings. What happened to them. So they 512 00:30:08,920 --> 00:30:10,959 Speaker 1: moved back to Central Point, to their hometown where they 513 00:30:10,960 --> 00:30:13,520 Speaker 1: always wanted to be and always wanted to raise their children, 514 00:30:13,560 --> 00:30:15,760 Speaker 1: and they kind of layed low after that. They stayed 515 00:30:15,760 --> 00:30:18,280 Speaker 1: out of the spotlight. They didn't like become I think 516 00:30:18,320 --> 00:30:20,840 Speaker 1: if this had all happened today, it would be very 517 00:30:20,840 --> 00:30:24,400 Speaker 1: different because they would probably be hounded by reporters and 518 00:30:24,480 --> 00:30:27,520 Speaker 1: reality TV producers right if nothing else. They would probably 519 00:30:27,560 --> 00:30:31,600 Speaker 1: have been in today's time, really pressured to to become 520 00:30:32,080 --> 00:30:34,880 Speaker 1: sort of evangelists for the civil rights movement. But they 521 00:30:34,920 --> 00:30:40,479 Speaker 1: really they they politely declined the media spotlight after they 522 00:30:40,520 --> 00:30:43,800 Speaker 1: moved back. Sadly, they were in a car accident in 523 00:30:43,920 --> 00:30:46,760 Speaker 1: ninety five in which they were hit by a drunk 524 00:30:46,840 --> 00:30:50,480 Speaker 1: driver and Richard was killed and Mildred lost the sight 525 00:30:50,600 --> 00:30:54,040 Speaker 1: in one eye. UM. She later died in pneumonia in 526 00:30:54,120 --> 00:30:57,920 Speaker 1: May of two thousand and eight. UM there was a 527 00:30:58,040 --> 00:31:02,520 Speaker 1: nine TV movie made about their story called Mr. And 528 00:31:02,640 --> 00:31:05,840 Speaker 1: Mrs Loving, and then there was another on HBO, a 529 00:31:05,880 --> 00:31:09,320 Speaker 1: documentary called The Loving Story, and that premiered just last 530 00:31:09,400 --> 00:31:12,960 Speaker 1: year on Allen Hine's Day, so Valentine's Day of uh. 531 00:31:12,960 --> 00:31:15,360 Speaker 1: And it will actually be out on DVD shortly. I 532 00:31:15,400 --> 00:31:18,000 Speaker 1: really wanted to watch it before doing this episode, but 533 00:31:18,080 --> 00:31:20,880 Speaker 1: it it was not available to me by any legal means, 534 00:31:20,920 --> 00:31:24,920 Speaker 1: so you will have to wait until June twelve is 535 00:31:24,960 --> 00:31:27,680 Speaker 1: the anniversary of the Supreme Court's ruling and it is 536 00:31:27,920 --> 00:31:32,880 Speaker 1: unofficially celebrated as Loving Day. And also Mildred who really 537 00:31:33,720 --> 00:31:36,200 Speaker 1: she She didn't give a lot of interviews. She she 538 00:31:36,320 --> 00:31:40,320 Speaker 1: pretty much kept to herself after especially after her husband's death. 539 00:31:40,800 --> 00:31:43,160 Speaker 1: She gave a statement about the freedom to Mary in 540 00:31:43,200 --> 00:31:45,960 Speaker 1: two thousand seven, so about a year before her death 541 00:31:46,560 --> 00:31:50,240 Speaker 1: and her statement here's here's an excerpt of it. Surrounded 542 00:31:50,280 --> 00:31:54,000 Speaker 1: as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not 543 00:31:54,160 --> 00:31:56,479 Speaker 1: a day goes by that I don't think of Richard 544 00:31:56,600 --> 00:31:59,400 Speaker 1: and our love all right to Mary, and how much 545 00:31:59,400 --> 00:32:01,400 Speaker 1: it meant to me to have that freedom to marry 546 00:32:01,440 --> 00:32:04,400 Speaker 1: the person precious to me, even if others thought that 547 00:32:04,480 --> 00:32:07,080 Speaker 1: he was the wrong kind of person for me to marry. 548 00:32:07,360 --> 00:32:10,640 Speaker 1: I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter 549 00:32:10,680 --> 00:32:14,400 Speaker 1: their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have the 550 00:32:14,440 --> 00:32:18,360 Speaker 1: same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some 551 00:32:18,400 --> 00:32:22,720 Speaker 1: people's religious beliefs over others, especially if it denies people's 552 00:32:22,840 --> 00:32:26,240 Speaker 1: civil rights. I am still not a political person, but 553 00:32:26,320 --> 00:32:28,600 Speaker 1: I am proud that Richard's and my name is on 554 00:32:28,640 --> 00:32:32,200 Speaker 1: a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, 555 00:32:32,560 --> 00:32:36,400 Speaker 1: the fairness, and the family that so many people, black 556 00:32:36,480 --> 00:32:40,320 Speaker 1: or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. 557 00:32:40,800 --> 00:32:43,840 Speaker 1: I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what 558 00:32:44,040 --> 00:32:50,520 Speaker 1: loving and loving are all about. I love her. That 559 00:32:50,640 --> 00:32:54,239 Speaker 1: is my one personal side that is not based on 560 00:32:55,160 --> 00:32:59,160 Speaker 1: any documented research. I think that's lovely. It is. It's 561 00:32:59,520 --> 00:33:02,200 Speaker 1: quite a like see for someone to leave. Yeah, and 562 00:33:02,320 --> 00:33:05,760 Speaker 1: um that that's why this case has been cited pretty 563 00:33:05,760 --> 00:33:09,400 Speaker 1: often in in the Defense of Marriage Act in proposition 564 00:33:09,520 --> 00:33:12,719 Speaker 1: eight cases that are before the Supreme Court as we 565 00:33:12,760 --> 00:33:16,479 Speaker 1: record this um. The Loving versus of Virginia case has 566 00:33:16,520 --> 00:33:18,840 Speaker 1: been cited a lot, But I don't know that many 567 00:33:18,840 --> 00:33:20,560 Speaker 1: people really know the whole story of that, so I 568 00:33:20,600 --> 00:33:23,640 Speaker 1: hope people have enjoyed learning about it in this episode. 569 00:33:24,720 --> 00:33:28,120 Speaker 1: And do you also have listener mail? I do. This 570 00:33:28,240 --> 00:33:31,600 Speaker 1: listener mail is from Linda. Linda says, I just finished 571 00:33:31,640 --> 00:33:34,760 Speaker 1: listening to your trial of Goody Garlic podcast. I couldn't 572 00:33:34,800 --> 00:33:37,120 Speaker 1: believe it when you stated that this incident took place 573 00:33:37,120 --> 00:33:40,440 Speaker 1: in East Hampton. I had recently listened to your podcast 574 00:33:40,480 --> 00:33:43,280 Speaker 1: on Johnny Applefeed and was surprised to learn that he 575 00:33:43,320 --> 00:33:45,640 Speaker 1: grew up in Long Meadow, Massachusetts, where I have lived 576 00:33:45,680 --> 00:33:49,200 Speaker 1: for the past ten years. Side note, we did remark 577 00:33:49,400 --> 00:33:53,720 Speaker 1: that there was a lot of Massachusetts and our recent episodes, 578 00:33:53,760 --> 00:33:55,880 Speaker 1: and that was not intentional. It was just kind of coincidence. 579 00:33:55,960 --> 00:33:59,680 Speaker 1: So back to Linda's letter. Now another podcast taking place 580 00:33:59,720 --> 00:34:02,800 Speaker 1: in Maryssachusetts again East Hampton, which is just about twenty 581 00:34:02,800 --> 00:34:06,440 Speaker 1: miles from here. Amazing. Oh but wait, as I listened more, 582 00:34:06,600 --> 00:34:09,239 Speaker 1: I realized that you probably meant East Hampton, which I 583 00:34:09,280 --> 00:34:12,160 Speaker 1: believe is in Long Island, New York. However, this is 584 00:34:12,200 --> 00:34:14,920 Speaker 1: only a guess since the state where the East Hampton 585 00:34:15,320 --> 00:34:18,680 Speaker 1: or East Hampton was never mentioned. Perhaps in the future, 586 00:34:18,760 --> 00:34:20,680 Speaker 1: might you might want to state which state you are 587 00:34:20,719 --> 00:34:23,360 Speaker 1: referring to. After all, I can't be the only listener 588 00:34:23,520 --> 00:34:27,440 Speaker 1: who knows of more than one East Hampton. By the way, 589 00:34:27,560 --> 00:34:30,000 Speaker 1: keep up the good work. Love your podcast. So first, 590 00:34:30,040 --> 00:34:32,960 Speaker 1: thank you so much, Linda. Second, the reason we didn't 591 00:34:32,960 --> 00:34:35,000 Speaker 1: say what state it was in is because it's kind 592 00:34:35,000 --> 00:34:37,560 Speaker 1: of a confusing mess. It wasn't really in a state 593 00:34:37,920 --> 00:34:39,960 Speaker 1: right yet. And we mentioned at the end of that 594 00:34:40,040 --> 00:34:43,520 Speaker 1: podcast that it had fallen under the or had agreed 595 00:34:43,560 --> 00:34:46,040 Speaker 1: to become part of the jurisdiction of Connecticut. It is 596 00:34:46,040 --> 00:34:49,000 Speaker 1: indeed the East Hampton that is part of Long Island. 597 00:34:49,400 --> 00:34:54,120 Speaker 1: It had agreed to join up with Connecticut as part 598 00:34:54,160 --> 00:34:57,359 Speaker 1: of the that sort of dual legal thing that they 599 00:34:57,400 --> 00:34:59,640 Speaker 1: were doing where they were delivering goody garlic and kind 600 00:34:59,640 --> 00:35:02,160 Speaker 1: of working that deal. But of course that didn't pan out, 601 00:35:02,160 --> 00:35:04,160 Speaker 1: and now it's part of New York. Yeah, we talked 602 00:35:04,200 --> 00:35:06,799 Speaker 1: about it wasn't really part of any state yet, right, 603 00:35:06,880 --> 00:35:09,360 Speaker 1: We talked about the Connecticut part and in the episode. 604 00:35:09,400 --> 00:35:11,120 Speaker 1: But but yeah, at the time, it was not in 605 00:35:11,160 --> 00:35:14,040 Speaker 1: any state. And then when when Long Island became part 606 00:35:14,120 --> 00:35:17,760 Speaker 1: of New York, then East Hampton became part of New York. Also, 607 00:35:18,200 --> 00:35:20,359 Speaker 1: um I found that also be so confusing when we're 608 00:35:20,360 --> 00:35:22,440 Speaker 1: talking about but I probably should have clarified at some 609 00:35:22,480 --> 00:35:24,520 Speaker 1: point that it was in fact the one on Long Island, 610 00:35:24,680 --> 00:35:28,240 Speaker 1: So my apologies. Thank you, Linda, Thank you for sending 611 00:35:28,239 --> 00:35:31,040 Speaker 1: that to us. If you would like to email us, 612 00:35:31,080 --> 00:35:34,200 Speaker 1: you may do so at History Podcast at Discovery dot com. 613 00:35:34,560 --> 00:35:37,760 Speaker 1: We're also on Facebook dot com slash History class stuff 614 00:35:37,800 --> 00:35:40,720 Speaker 1: and on Twitter at missed in History. We have launched 615 00:35:40,760 --> 00:35:43,440 Speaker 1: a tumbler recently. It is missed in History dot tumbler 616 00:35:43,480 --> 00:35:46,640 Speaker 1: dot com, and we're on Pinterest. If you would like 617 00:35:46,719 --> 00:35:49,239 Speaker 1: to learn more about what we have talked about these 618 00:35:49,320 --> 00:35:51,520 Speaker 1: last two episodes, you can come to our website and 619 00:35:51,560 --> 00:35:54,399 Speaker 1: put the word marriage in the search bar. You will 620 00:35:54,440 --> 00:35:57,600 Speaker 1: find pretty quickly in the search results be truth through 621 00:35:57,640 --> 00:36:00,520 Speaker 1: the Centuries, a timeline of marriage which referee says the 622 00:36:00,680 --> 00:36:03,799 Speaker 1: Loving versus Virginia case. You can do all of that 623 00:36:03,840 --> 00:36:05,839 Speaker 1: and a lot more at our website, which is how 624 00:36:05,880 --> 00:36:10,680 Speaker 1: stuff Works dot com. For more on this and thousands 625 00:36:10,680 --> 00:36:30,000 Speaker 1: of other topics, visit how stuff Works dot com. Netflix 626 00:36:30,000 --> 00:36:33,200 Speaker 1: streams TV shows and movies directly to your home, saving 627 00:36:33,200 --> 00:36:36,680 Speaker 1: you time, money, and hassle. As a Netflix member, you 628 00:36:36,719 --> 00:36:40,160 Speaker 1: can instantly watch TV episodes and movies streaming directly to 629 00:36:40,239 --> 00:36:43,319 Speaker 1: your PC, Mac, or right to your TV with your 630 00:36:43,480 --> 00:36:46,880 Speaker 1: Xbox three, sixty p S three or Nintendo we console, 631 00:36:47,040 --> 00:36:50,479 Speaker 1: plus Apple devices, Kindle and Nook. Get a free thirty 632 00:36:50,520 --> 00:36:54,200 Speaker 1: day trial membership. Go to www dot Netflix dot com 633 00:36:54,280 --> 00:36:55,160 Speaker 1: and sign up now.